RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (22) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: FL Debate Peanut Gallery, Keep it Clean!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:26   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 14 2009,00:02)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 13 2009,18:36)
There is no debate.

There is only mock.

Indeed, though lately I'm pretty much over even that. I only have time for the one-fingered salute with a hearty "Fuck off, TARD". On a patient day, I might add, "Read a book, moron."

Patient days are coming fewer and farther between, however.

I've noticed the same tendency in myself. Are we getting old?

Anyway, back to the reason for the season....

{Hands round vodka shots}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:30   

Hi Floyd.  Let me be the first to welcome you to teh swamp.  As you can probably tell, you've wandered in to the bar across the street from the debate hall.  The clientele have mostly passed out on the floor, and won't be awake to nurse their hangovers until about noon or so.
 Deadman has set up a proper forum for you here, and will try to keep the riffraff out, or at least up in the peanut gallery/nosebleed seats.
 Don't let the occasional "YOU LIE!!!!111!!!" from the ruffians in the peanut gallery throw you off script.
 Let the showww begin!

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:31   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 14 2009,07:15)
Well, hello there!  My apologies; it's 12:35 am CST, and I'd meant to be logged in at least an hour or two ago.  

So this is the legendary AtBC, hmm!  Looks like a most interesting saloon in which to conduct a gunfight....

And sincere thanks to Deadman for setting this up.

***

Brief recap:  From tonite through Sun Nov 1, I will be explaining and defending the overall topic "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity" (including an emphasis on "the biblical perspective on biology").
followed afterwards by explaining and defending the overall topic "The ID Hypothesis is Science and should therefore be taught in Public School Science Classrooms.".  

Mostly I'll be posting and responding at night, but sometimes in the daytime too.  By Nov. 1, my intention is to be finished discussing both topics.  

Btw, I couldn't help but smile at Doc Bill's comment:

Quote
The fact that FL can generate 3 pages of mocking WITHOUT EVEN FUCKING SHOWING UP is BRILLIANT.


Sounds like we all gonna have some fun up in here!  

:)

Welcome FL, if you are who you say you are.

After all, if creationist internet posters didn't exist it would be necessary to invent them.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:31   

So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?

Because, first and foremost, that's the truth, as we shall see.  

Secondly, because of the damage that evolution is doing to the faith of Christians (in some cases, former faith, as it has already been lost).  
Evolution erodes and corrodes Christian faith.  Poisonously so.  Daniel Dennett was right: evolution is "The Universal Acid."

No, evolution is not always the entire gig of why people lose their faith (after all, you're talking about an entire constellation of causes there).

But evolution clearly seems to grease that overall slide downward.  It's a contributing corrosive factor, and it keeps on popping up in various personal testimonies.  Here's two examples.

       
Quote
"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian.  When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion.  I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory."

---E.O. Wilson, The Humanist magazine, Sept. 1982


       
Quote
"Evolution played an even more central role in torpedoing (Richard) Dawkins' Anglican when he was 15.  Dawkins says he had always assumed that the intricacy of living things meant God must have designed them, just as the English philosopher William Paley argued in his 1802 book "Natural Theology."

Then Dawkins began to learn about evolution, and he realized that biology could explain life's apparent design without the need for a deity.

"So finally it was Darwinism that did it for my religious faith," Dawkins said in an interview at Oxford University.

---Jeremy Manier, "The New Theology,", Chicago Tribune Online, Jan. 20, 2008


By the way, Manier's article also contains the sad story of Christian college professor (and theistic evolutionist)  Howard Van Till's fall from Christianity.  Might as well check that horror story out too:

       
Quote
"If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that," says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999.
 

So since belief in the biblical Jesus automatically entails belief in supernaturalism (you know, supernatural miracles, including "overpowering control" of stormy winds and waves, and little things like, umm, rising from the dead), Van Till is effectively denying what the Bible clearly and foundationally said about Jesus himself.    

At that point, you droppin' out of Christianity, folks.  You takin' the A-train straight to Eternal Hell-Fire on your Eternal Butt, and meanwhile thinkin' that you all enlightened, all scientific, and all cool on the tracks.
You gotta be kidding.  All you're doing is proving that Evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.

And then there's the ultimate tragic back-sliding evolution example, Big Daddy Chuck Darwin himself, your patron saint.

         
Quote
"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument.

It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries."

---Jacob Weisberg, Slate.com, Aug. 10, 2005


The details of evolution's tragic erosion and destruction of Charles Darwin's faith can be found here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

******

So people we gotta get serious, I don't care what label you wear or don't wear.  Evolutionists from Eugenie Scott and her NCSE gang to the Freeman-Herron evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition are busy trying to sell you the snake-oiled scam that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity, even though you can clearly see from the above examples that it is simply NOT compatible.

So that's why we have to talk about it.  Some of YOU, sitting right there, already know that evolution has done some serious corroding and eroding on YOUR personal or former Christian beliefs too.  In fact, some of you used to be Christians but now are NO longer Christians---and evolution is a factor in there somewhere.  
Shoot, every time some of you stick your evolutionist nose close to your keyboards, you keep getting faint whiffs of sulphur and brimstone.  Get a clue baby!!

This is a tragedy.  This is an emergency.  And it's happening to science-loving, God-loving youth and young adults right now.  We gotta at least talk about it, assuming you got the cajones for such discussion.

My next post will offer a short list of the primary reasons why evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:53   

Ooooh are we going to be saved? I haven't been saved in ages.

I'm even mildly looking forward to the forthcoming crapfest. My, my, is that the sound of my hard bitten (and hard won!) cynicism regarding creationists cracking mildly?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:53   

Quote
This is a tragedy.  This is an emergency.  And it's happening to science-loving, God-loving youth and young adults right now.  We gotta at least talk about it, assuming you got the cajones for such discussion.

Even if we accept that is the case, what then?

What do you propose replacing "Evolution" with exactly?

Sure, provide reasons why you claim your religion is incompatible with evolution. Knock yourself out.

However, what's the point unless you specify what you'd replace it with that would be compatible with both the physical evidence and your religion.

As it seems to me the logical position to take (and one that many people have taken as you yourself note) is that if your particular religion and evolution are incompatible then your religion, not evolution, is wrong.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,03:18   

Quote
Ooooh are we going to be saved? I haven't been saved in ages.


Oh no no, don't get me wrong dude.  I didn't come here to save anybody.  You wanna be Old Scratch's next piece of Pitchfork Shish-Ka-Bobbed Rump-Roast, I'm not gonna git in your way at all!

Shoot, if savin' you guys were my intention up in here, I'd be all polite and circumspect in my choice of words within this peanut thread.  Heh!

Nope, my intention here is simply to execute the two stated discussion/debate topics to the best of my ability by Nov 1.  The opportunity was graciously extended and so I'm here.

Now I have promised to be civil, respectful and circumspect about it all in the main debate thread, and I will very seriously keep that promise.  
I do value respectfulness and civility and my two favorite discussion forums (CARM and TCJ, btw), are quite seriously (and evenhandedly) moderated for precisely those two qualities.

However, in this AtBC peanut thread, I might loosen up and go freestyle a bit, have a little fun, stick some ants in your evo-pants.  (Preferably solenopsis invicta, yes?)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4928
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,03:46   

Quote

So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?


It seems pretty pointless to me. FL has his opinion, and he will not be persuaded otherwise, as years of interaction have shown. Others have different opinions, despite the various arguments and, more commonly, simple reiteration deployed by FL over those same years.

Lenny Flank's questions would be apropos here, it seems.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,04:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 14 2009,09:46)
Quote

So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?


It seems pretty pointless to me. FL has his opinion, and he will not be persuaded otherwise, as years of interaction have shown. Others have different opinions, despite the various arguments and, more commonly, simple reiteration deployed by FL over those same years.

Lenny Flank's questions would be apropos here, it seems.

Lenny's questions, at least on this matter, are ALWAYS apropos.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,04:33   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 14 2009,09:18)
 
Quote
Ooooh are we going to be saved? I haven't been saved in ages.


Oh no no, don't get me wrong dude.  I didn't come here to save anybody.  You wanna be Old Scratch's next piece of Pitchfork Shish-Ka-Bobbed Rump-Roast, I'm not gonna git in your way at all!

[SNIP]

Ladies and Gentlemen the first, Loving Christian ™, Threat of Hell ™.

Believe as I do or die. Thank you Loving Christian ™, for all those options.

FL, true to form, is delivering in spades.

I'd say this is going to be fun. I'd be wrong if I did. This is, as predicted, going to be "interesting" as defined above.

Louis

ETA: Why do I get the impression that FL's presence here is the internet's equivalent of AtBC catching syphilis? I chose that disease deliberately, it has specific effects on the nervous system...

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,05:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 14 2009,03:46)
Quote

So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?


It seems pretty pointless to me. FL has his opinion, and he will not be persuaded otherwise, as years of interaction have shown. Others have different opinions, despite the various arguments and, more commonly, simple reiteration deployed by FL over those same years.

Lenny Flank's questions would be apropos here, it seems.

It does seem pointless. If I'd have been smarter, I'd have bothered to check on who he was. Instead -- in my ignorance -- I did precisely the wrong thing. However, now that he's accepted my stupid invitation, I have only bad choices as to how to handle it, and I apologize for the entire thing.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,05:38   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 14 2009,04:33)
I chose that disease deliberately, it has specific effects on the nervous system...

I will feed him and groom him and take him out for walks, and I will call him "Twitchy."

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,06:27   

Enough with the mea culpa's, Squirrel Boy! I for one Deadman am perfectly happy with what you did. We haven't had a creationist chum for a while here. Granted, new, exciting, less wilfully stupid and obstinate creationist chums are always preferred to old, dull, arse-quakingly reliant on quote mining, and stubbornly unintelligent creationist chums, but hey, when life gives you stupid fucking lemons, you make stupid fucking lemonade.

I'm sorry. I know FL is a human being, a wonderful, unique snowflake and thus deserving of my kindness and civility, and I shall struggle to elevate my curmudgeonly self to appropriate levels of such. But dammit wilful, active ignorance and stupidity piss me off. Disagreement I can handle, I *LIKE* disagreement. It makes for fun debate and discussion, which is after all what I came here for many moons ago. (By "here" I mean Teh Intertubez not just the wonderful drunken debauchery and never ending series of puns and mum jokes that is AtBC). But, tragically, there does come a point when you realise that you are trying to have a rational debate with people that are simply incapable of it. Then the misanthropy sets is.

I wonder how Wes maintains his cheery demeanour in the face of staggering mendignostupitude*. He's been at the forefront of this for a long old while. I'm guessing massive amounts of drugs.

Louis

*Neologisms, not my strong point. Mendignostupitude is a specific combination of mendacity, stupidity and ignorance that is actively maintained, even claimed to be desirable. The maintenance of such traits must be done openly, wilfully, and stubbornly. Mere native stupidity is not required, the person can be very intelligent, but they must be actively TRYING to be stupid. The combination must be displayed with an attitude of perfect righteousness. People exhibiting this quality habitually fall back on false accusations of tu quoque, appeals to mystery, personal ignorance, persecution and most importantly conspiracy. Mendignostupitude is a hallmark of all species of denialist.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,06:28   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 14 2009,11:38)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 14 2009,04:33)
I chose that disease deliberately, it has specific effects on the nervous system...

I will feed him and groom him and take him out for walks, and I will call him "Twitchy."

Is his Native American name* not more appropriate?

Louis

*Dribbles With Ignorance?

ETA: DAMN! That little personal promise lasted all of ten seconds. I am a bad person and deserve to be spanked. I shall call up Mistress Spanky McDiscipline immediately for appropriate punishment. I promise that I have been a very bad boy and will in no way enjoy myself.

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,07:00   

Who cares if evolution is incompatible with Christianity (or Islam, or Zoroastrianism, or Pastafarianism, for that matter)? It is compatible with the evidence.

This whole thing is a argumentum ad consequentiam. FL doesn't like the consequences of reality. It makes his interpretation of non-reality difficult. Big deal. Why should we care if he can't deal with reality?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,07:02   

Quote
Believe as I do or die

That's getting off easy.  Everyone dies; FL's loving god would have you tortured infinitely, forever, for your crime of coming to your own conclusions about how the universe works.

Don't blame FL though, he's been held captive by Jebus for so long that he's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,08:25   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 14 2009,06:27)
Enough with the mea culpa's, Squirrel Boy! I for one Deadman am perfectly happy with what you did. We haven't had a creationist chum for a while here. Granted, new, exciting, less wilfully stupid and obstinate creationist chums are always preferred to old, dull, arse-quakingly reliant on quote mining, and stubbornly unintelligent creationist chums, but hey, when life gives you stupid fucking lemons, you make stupid fucking lemonade.

I second what Louis said,  - Don't apologize - and give a huge "Whew"... That could be me dammit, if BA^77 had accepted the challenge a couple of weeks ago - and we could use another Creo For Christ to play with.  

I wonder if FL can flounce out as good as FTK?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,08:41   

Came across this while perusing some of Floyd's past forays:

*********************

Please read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

Does the above passage indicate to you that:

1. The author sees evolution by natural selection as a 'basic' phenomenon/concept that has applications to biology, cosmology; both animate/living and inanimate/non-living things and thus as a concept, 'evolution' ties all all these areas together



2. The author is indicating that abiogenesis/cosmochemical evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution as put forth by Darwin
*********************

The question is asked because Floyd likes to take snippets from that quote to claim that evolution (as such) definitley includes abiogenesis, and we all know that if you can find problems with abiogenesis, therefore, you've found problems with evolution:

***************

He's referring to his fantasy wherein Oro's quote (Mello only ever quotes this part: "...organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3)." except that he leaves off the ellipses in the beginning and capitalizes Organic) really means that abiogenesis is part and parcel of Biological evolution and thus if he can carry on about a bunch of 'problems' with abiogenesis, he has thus refuted evolution as well.

He insists that he is interpeteing Oro correctly when he comes to that conclusion.
***************

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,08:53   

Oooo - that one musta hurt, eh Floyd?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,09:10   

Quote (SLP @ Sep. 14 2009,08:53)
Oooo - that one musta hurt, eh Floyd?

Yep... Cherryl pretty much hands FL his ass, and we have the smoking gun proof of FL's Lots Of Lying For Jesus.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,10:02   

Quote (SLP @ Sep. 14 2009,08:53)
Oooo - that one musta hurt, eh Floyd?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,10:17   

Not that it will matter, of course.   If you are familiar with FL/Mellotron's antics re: the Oro quote, you wil know that neither context nor common sense will deter his invincible ignorance.

  
JohnK



Posts: 13
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,10:30   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 14 2009,02:31)
Manier's article also contains the sad story of Christian college professor (and theistic evolutionist)  Howard Van Till's fall from Christianity.  
Might as well check that horror story out too.

As anyone can see (Jeremy Manier, "The New Theology", Chicago Tribune, Jan. 20, 2008), Manier's article also contains the views of christian theistic evolutionists Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, John Haught, Ken Miller, Thomas Berry, etc.
Even in his very first debate post, FL couldn't restrain from his standard practice of selective quotations and cherrypicking, rewriting his own horror story over and over.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2165
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,10:34   

"Speaking  to  a  group  of  Italian  priests  ..."

Good post Deadman. Why you wanted a new chewtoy is beyond me, but you did promise to clean up after him.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,11:10   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 14 2009,08:00)
Who cares if evolution is incompatible with Christianity (or Islam, or Zoroastrianism, or Pastafarianism, for that matter)? It is compatible with the evidence.

This whole thing is a argumentum ad consequentiam. FL doesn't like the consequences of reality. It makes his interpretation of non-reality difficult. Big deal. Why should we care if he can't deal with reality?

he seems to be oblivious to the fact that religious claims don't make contact with empirical reality and therefore can be contorted to fit whatever facts there may be available.

poor sap pobby thinks the 10 commandments were really written in stone

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,12:11   

FL said:

“…Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity?

Because, first and foremost, that's the truth, as we shall see.”

No, as has been demonstrated to the point of ad nauseam, that is not the truth. That is lie number one (you are off to an unsurprising start). It is only true for you and other Sunday fundies who happen to share your particular interpretation of Christianity – hardly a universal truth. But, simply for the sake of argument, even if it was true, so what? Evolutionary biology is a science (whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not is irrelevant) supported by volumes of facts and evidence, i.e., reality. It doesn’t matter whether it conflicts (even universally) with Christian dogma or not. ToE is no more, or less, contradictory to your beliefs than quantum theory or Lambda CDM\Big Bang theory. In any of the cases mentioned, so what? Scientific facts and evidence are just that – facts and evidence (again, reality). What you are apparently advocating is that reality be dismissed in favor of centuries old religious dogma. Are you totally oblivious to how patently stupid that is? I can’t attribute that kind of inane thought processing to ignorance; on the contrary, it falls squarely at the high end of the stupid spectrum. I have to assume that your particular belief system is the result of intense childhood indoctrination and not something you acquired in the midst of adulthood.

Having been raised by ultra-liberal, reality oriented, but god believing parents, my brother and I were spared being spoon-fed any of your fundamentalist garbage. I can’t personally speak for my younger brother, he died too young to have formulated a serious opinion, but I have no doubt that my own devout, apathetic agnosticism is a direct result of my parents telling me the real truth about things I questioned – and for that I thank them. Which leads me to your second lie:

“Evolution erodes and corrodes Christian faith. Poisonously so. Daniel Dennett was right: evolution is "The Universal Acid."”

Wrong. It obviously hasn’t corroded your faith or others who fervently believe as you do. As for most other people, they do not see a conflict between evolution and their faith to begin with, therefore your statement doesn’t even apply. As for those who may have abandoned fundamentalist nonsense in favor of reality …wonderful. That’s not an erosion, it’s blessing! It’s called enlightenment to the truths of the Universe. It also means that there is one less self-appointed, self-righteous moralist standing on self-anointed high ground, hell bent to deny equal opportunities and benefits to people like me. If all of Christendom evaporated into oblivion this afternoon, who (other than you and your ilk) would really care? It would simply be the demise of an institution that has, for centuries, caused more harm, divisiveness, and strife then any appreciable benefit.

The rest of your biblical babble rant you have posted a thousand times before – it’s all ridiculous and no more relevant now then it was before. Nonsense about supernatural miracles that have absolutely no compelling evidence of support, childish scare tactics about hell, stupid remarks like Darwin being a patron saint (I don’t worship dead people – even ones who have made monumental contributions to science and humanity – I admire and respect them …worshiping dead people is something you do), and the imagined tragedy and emergency to today’s youth being corrupted by real science (it hasn’t corrupted me). And the only time I get a whiff of sulfur is when my grandfather lights a match for his pipe. So, why don’t you get a clue and drop the “incompatibility argument” (you are merely voicing a personal opinion that is no more valid than any other opinion) and just move on to the “ID is science” nonsense. At least that would be somewhat more …interesting. No more compelling, but maybe a little more interesting (or not). Any chance?

--------------
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,12:25   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 14 2009,02:31)
So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?

Because, first and foremost, that's the truth, as we shall see...  

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Personally I self-identified as a Christian when first entering these debates. What I saw was that the people defending evolution where far more honest than the creationists that where attacking it. I saw science's defenders use evidence and reasoning while your side used deception and bullshit.

Now I self-identify as an agnostic. You think it was evolution that caused me to change my opinion, when in actuality it was the behaviour of your ilk. If you can't be honest about things that are easy to check, do you really expect me to trust you on things that aren't?

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,12:55   

While it would be perfectly valid for you to say "evolution is incompatible with my version of Christianity", the generalization "evolution is incompatible with all forms of Christianity" is so obviously wrong, since all that's required to falsify that statement is for a single Christian to disagree with it (e.g. the Pope), and your only recourse seems to be the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (the Pope's not a "True Christiantm").
 I'm surprised that you next plan to argue that "ID is science".  Seems like first you must answer the question "Is ID compatible with Christianity", since  by your apparent definition of Christianity, it would seem that the answer is "No".  Even Baptist Dembski and Catholic Behe argue that ID is compatible with the science of evolution.  Where does that leave you?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,12:58   

Quote
FL has his opinion, and he will not be persuaded otherwise, as years of interaction have shown.


And I can say the exact same thing about you, Dr. Elsberry, based on reading your PT posts for years likewise.  

In fact, I would be very highly surprised if anybody in this forum confessed at all to being "persuaded otherwise" from their current position, after being presented with the facts and reasonings that I intend to offer, as well as the counter-responses from Deadman and other posters.

You see, this debate--though intended to "persuade" as all debates are intended to--is not based on anybody promising to be "persuaded otherwise" or confess such, even if their POV does happen to quietly change.  Most public debates--online or offline--don't come with any guarantees or expectations in that direction.  

The idea is simply that each side rationally presents their case the best they can, also rationally responding to their opponent's case the best they can, and then both sides let the chips fall where they may.  That's it.

As I suggested, I'm NOT here looking for converts.  I'm NOT going to conduct any "Sawdust Trail Altar Calls" after this debate is over to see if anybody's ready to repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior, or ready to accept the historicity and trustworthiness of Genesis, or ready to accept whatever whatever.  That's simply not the issue here.

All I wanna do is honor the gracious invitation that was given, and do my best on the topics given.  
Hopefully the end result will be that an informative and vigorous discussion/debate will have taken place and provide much food for thought, for all your readers and lurkers.

******

There is one other thing, however.  My understanding from previous posts of the past, is that you yourself profess to be a Christian, Dr. Elsberry.  
So one of the things that I am particularly interested in is hearing the views and responses of the AtBC posters who claim to be Christians as well as evolutionists, in light of the very heavy incompatibilities I'll be presenting and documenting later today.

So I hope you will make time in your busy schedule to respond to some or all of them, as time permits for you.  This particular request is extended not only to Dr. Elsberry but to all Christian (and non-Christian) evolutionists who may be reading this post.  Thanks in advance!

FloydLee

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,13:05   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 14 2009,18:25)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 14 2009,02:31)
So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?

Because, first and foremost, that's the truth, as we shall see...  

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Personally I self-identified as a Christian when first entering these debates. What I saw was that the people defending evolution where far more honest than the creationists that where attacking it. I saw science's defenders use evidence and reasoning while your side used deception and bullshit.

Now I self-identify as an agnostic. You think it was evolution that caused me to change my opinion, when in actuality it was the behaviour of your ilk. If you can't be honest about things that are easy to check, do you really expect me to trust you on things that aren't?

Welcome back Steve BTW. Are you well?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  634 replies since Sep. 09 2009,12:17 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (22) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]